Dec 21 2015
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
TENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
RE-CASE # 14-1294 Hale vs Oliver,
Dear Sir or Madam,
Please file the enclosed letter that I have written to the three Judges assigned to decide my case and furnish them copies accordingly.
Thank you kindly,
Very Truly Yours,
Appellant Pro Se
Dec 18 2015
PANEL OF THREE JUDGES
ASSIGNED TO MY CASE
TENTH CIRCUIT OF APPEALS
CASE # 14-1294 Hale vs Oliver,
Your Honors :
I recently had the opportunity to listen to the recording of the Oral Argument that was held in my case this past November 19th and I thank you for the attention and consideration that you expressed for my predicament during that proceeding.
While I am otherwise pleased with what Mr. Sanders argued on my behalf, I believe that he omitted a very important point that could possibly prove critical in helping to determine whether I spend another 22 years in prison for crimes that I simply did not commit. Hence why I felt compelled to write you this letter. I beg your indulgence accordingly.
The simply fact of the matter is that innocence is a part of my case contrary to what Mr. Sanders implied at the Oral Argument, and it is that innocence that provides this court with the ( additional) ability to issue a rather narrow decision in my favor and thus assuage the concern that it expressed at Oral Argument that such a decision could lead to a flood gate of section 2241 of litigation.
Thus, I do not believe that it is so that my juror misconduct claim should be considered alone in that regard. Rather, my other claim of factual and legal innocence should also be considered as a means of providing a very narrow ruling to the court that I am indeed allowed to pursue my juror misconduct and innocent claims pursuant to section 2241.
While it is true that innocence is irrelevant to the Prost test
(Abernathy vs Wandes, 713. F 3D 538, 546 N 7 ), it is certainly highly relevant in regards to the constitutional avoidance arguments that I have presented as well as to my other arguments. Innocence also seems to be extremely important to the Governments own position in this case as well as to the decisions of the other circuits. Finally, it also seemed important to your Honors at the Oral Argument. Hence why I felt obliged to remind the court that it is part of my case and intrinsically so.
What makes my case so extremely unique is that very few prisoners are ever going to be able to claim, in good faith, that not only was the fundamental integrity of their trial undermined due to specific and provable juror misconduct but also that they are innocent of the charged offences altogether. Thus the combination of my juror misconduct claim and my innocence claim provides the court with the very limiting principle in a ruling in my favor that it sought to discern at Oral Argument.
No floodgates of section 2241 litigation will open as a result in a decision in my favor since hardly any prisoners are able to assert both that they are innocent and suffered juror misconduct. (I would remind the court that there are indeed two claims that I brought in this appeal, innocence, and juror misconduct and that the former is argued extensively in my opening brief, pages 11 - 52. I further more argued that the two claims should be considered in tandem with one another on pages 66 - 67 of that brief) Thus it was very important that I make this point clear before the court renders its decision.
I thank you for your attention and consideration in what has been a harrowing ordeal for me and my family to say the least.
Very Truly Yours,
Matthew Hale Pro Se
P.O Box 8500
Florence Co. 81226